Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Careers & People

3/1/2019
10:30 AM
Ira Winkler
Ira Winkler
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

Security Experts, Not Users, Are the Weakest Link

CISOs: Stop abdicating responsibility for problems with users - it's part of your job.

There are countless articles, conference speakers, panelists, and casual conversations among IT and security personnel lamenting that users are the weakest link in security. The claim is that no matter how well you secure your organization, it takes just one user to ruin everything. While there's no doubt that a user can take down these "experts'" networks, the problem lies not with the user, but with the experts.

As I wrote in my previous column, user actions are expected and, most importantly, enabled by security staff. The problem with the expression "the users are the weakest link" is that it abdicates responsibility for stopping problems. Security professionals may believe that they did everything they could, but they're really just giving up.

All a Part of the System
Here is what's critical: Users are a part of the system. They are not accessories. They serve a business function that requires interaction with your organization's computer systems. To determine that a part of the system — users — will always be insecure and there is nothing that you can do about it is a failure on your part.

Consider just about any other discipline within an organization. Accounting has processes in place to deal with the expected human actions involving financial mistakes and malfeasance. You do not hear CFOs declare that they can't keep accurate financial records, because users are the weakest link. COOs don't say their organizations can't run effectively, because they have humans involved in operations. Any CFO or COO who made such a claim would be rightfully fired, because they are responsible for their processes, which have humans as a critical part of those processes and they must figure out how to effectively manage those people.

CISOs who cannot figure out how to effectively manage humans using systems they are responsible for protecting should be disciplined, if not fired, for proclaiming they are failing to deal with a critical aspect of their systems. Just as systems have to be designed to protect from the expected external hacking attacks, they must be designed to protect from expected user actions.

One critical aspect is that security professionals seem to believe that the solution to deal with human mistakes — and remember this doesn't deal with intentional malicious actions — is awareness training. But the reality is that although awareness training can be valuable, it is not perfect. This reliance on an imperfect countermeasure is behind the negligence in proclaiming users the weakest link.

Security professionals must realize that while awareness reduces the risk, their job is not finished. First we must consider that most awareness programs are poor. From experience, observation, and research, most awareness programs are not achieving their desired goals in creating strong security behaviors. Even assuming they could, security professionals would still need to create comprehensive programs that implement the supporting processes and technical countermeasures. This would account for both the inevitable user error as well as the malicious actions.

However, instead of security professionals acknowledging that they have failed to account for expected user failings or malfeasance, they blame the user. That is unacceptable.

While one my previous columns described the need for a human security officer to address the users from a comprehensive perspective, in short, you need to have a process in place that looks at potential user failings regarding:

  • What are critical processes or likely areas where users can create damage?
  • Analyzing and improving the processes to remove user decision-making, or specifying how decisions should be made, if they cannot be removed.
  • Implementing technology that prevents the opportunities for users to cause damage, as well as technology that mitigates damages if proactive measures don't work.
  • Developing awareness programs that focus on informing users how to make decisions and do their jobs according to the established processes.

Just as CFOs and COOs cannot simply state that the user is the weakest link to justify failures in the processes that they oversee, the CISO cannot blame users for failures in security processes. The user is an embedded component of organizational computer systems, and it is negligent not to put in a set of comprehensive countermeasures to prevent, detect, and mitigate the anticipated failings of that component.  

Related Content:

 

 

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry's most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

Ira Winkler is president of Secure Mentem and author of Advanced Persistent Security. View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
Luna Tsee
50%
50%
Luna Tsee,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/4/2019 | 2:21:10 PM
Who is at fault?

The analogy may not be perfect but it does make a valid point. Largely the issue of security is not one of blame, though there is some.

The point is simply the people responsible for security are patching holes in a bad design. Remote user identity is a problem. And until the password as the primary identity method is replaced with a better one, the problem will remain.

Enforcing security tools like 2FA, 2SA, Recapta, long and cryptic passwords and other requirements is making the user responsible for securing the system. Thus users must expend extra efforts and conform to content producers' requirements (dongles, RSA keys, smartcards, Upper case, lower case, special symbols, at least 13 characters, but no space, or non keyboard symbols) to conduct Internet intercourse makes the user "Prove Who They Are'. That's because the systems are not yet sophisticated enough to tell a human from a machine the real you from a 'clone'.

We have driver's licenses, passports, Charge Cards. None of these places such an extrordinary level of participation in identity.

It should not be the user's responsibility to secure the systems they interact with.

That's the problem. We can argue -Who's to blame: the User or CISO? all day but that doesn't solve the problem.

REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
3/5/2019 | 3:41:41 PM
Re: Who is at fault?
Secure password - use a SHA256 hash - easy to find if you have the noted file on another computer - extremely good security but hell to work with.  Supercalifragileisticexpealidocious also works with alternative charactter approach as does it backwards. 
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...